I didn't run it yet, the idea of using min(col1) = max(col1) was all I
needed.
I assumed it was incorrect because I thought
referring to an ungrouped column in a group by was incorrect, because the
ungrouped col would represent a set, and not a value...
I just ran this:
select c2 from
(select 1 as c1, 1 as c2
union
select 1 as c1, 2 as c2
union
select 1 as c1, 3 as c2)
group by c1
and it returns 3.
I think this is incorrect behaviour and should not compile because
the result of c2 is clearly {1, 2, 3}...or am I wrong about this?
Is this standard SQL languages behaviour?
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
>
> "johnny depp (really!)"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
>> You probably meant:
>>
>> select col1, case when min(col2) = max(col2) then min(col2) else 'not
>> the same' end
>> from mytable group by col1;
>
> It works for me as originally written. Do you get any errors?
>
> Igor Tandetnik
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sqlite-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Little-SQL-help-please..-tp22052925p22063324.html
Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
